If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think by what is meant by "proof" is "proof
in the form of a controlled study".

I have outlined a simple methodology for such
a study more than once, but the small-cell
advocates apparently do not wish to make
any of their regressed small-cell colonies
available for such studies, which involve
loaning them (and having them moved) to
some research facility or another for the
period of the test.

So, the white lab-coat set remains unwilling
to take the time to "regress bees" on their
very limited budgets, and the cell-cell set
keeps chanting "try it you'll like it", as if
that was some form of "proof", or as if mere
unwillingness to "drink the kool-aid" on the
part of the bulk of beekeepers and researchers
was stubbornness, rather than typical prudence.

Why should I donate a couple of my small cell hives and probably pay to have them transported to a university for testing. I've done the testing at my expense, and I bet my budget is more limited than most of the researchers budgets are.

If a research department couldn't spring for a few boxes of small cell foundation and a couple of hives on their own, they had better shut down the coffee machine and go home:&gt Doesn't appear to be much curiosity there. Is money the only motivation? Or is it just like almost every other government driven enterprise?

And as for the "try it you'll like it" chant, that's what has provided the basis for almost every aspect of beekeeping today. Other than the strips and chems, can anyone name a single beekeeping practice that has been initiated from research alone, without having first been perfected in the field by the beesuit set?

It appears that small cell hives must be established for the researchers. Then maybe someone could prove to them that small cell works. Then when all doubt is removed, they could come forth and tell us why it works! :&gt

I wonder why anyone would use a smoker, a Langstroth hive, an extractor, graft queens, cream honey, overwinter indoors, migrate, use foundation, wire a frame, or almost anything else without an official blessings? None of these have it.

I think the impasse is the result of a clash of beekeeping personalities and some political sensure. On one hand, the major promoter of small cell has quite an anti-establishment bent. Much has been linked with small cell that contradicts research done. And much is parroted in the small cell camp based upon faith in anothers testimony without much personal experience.

These personalities and attitudes definately turn off some more prudent beekeepers. And they definately prejudice the research crowd. Any researcher taking up a small cell project might get their lab coat dirty and loose the esteem of his peers if small cell doesn't work. Who would risk their pension for that?

There's no impasse for those who like to try things for themselves, thanks to Dadant and their small cell foundation. If you try it. Share your results. It's the difference between cutting edge beekeeping and dragging anchor beekeeping.

Regards
Dennis
Gosh, this rant isn't very small. But it's ok. The drug store is rushing me a new bottle of Prozac and I will be ok in a few hours. :&gt))))

Since small cell packages (which eliminated the regression step) are available from Buckeye and Bolling bees, it seems like the far better way to do a small cell experiment would be to buy X number of packages and X number of new hives and put 4.9mm wax in half the hives and 5.4mm in half the hives and put the bees in the hives. It would be cheaper and easier than shipping full hives of bees and it would eliminate the argument that the bees or some other variable is the issue, since many small cell beekeepers are trying to find and raise feral survivors.

The only impasse I see is that no one in the scientific community wants to do the research.

I lost 66% of my small cell colonies (not medicated, (2 out of three).
At same yard - 32% of my large cell, some medicated, (8 out of 25).
9%, one out of eleven, large cell, all medicated, at another yard .

or as if mere
unwillingness to "drink the kool-aid" on the
part of the bulk of beekeepers and researchers
was stubbornness, rather than typical prudence.

Drink the kool-aid? That analogy would be more appropriate for those putting antibiotics and chemical strips in the hives twice a year. There's nothing prudent about using antibiotics to prevent disease. We've known for a looong time that it's a recipe for creating resistant strains. And yet, nearly every beekeeping book I have tells me to dose the girls once or twice a year.

And why shouldn't researches try this? As Michael pointed out, small cell bees are available, small cell foundation is available. It doesn't cost any more to set up an SC hive than a regular one. There's nothing wrong, and a whole lot that's right, with trying to keep bees (or cows or goats or raise food) without extra chemicals.

I would be glad to have some real research. But in the meantime, I can learn from the experience of others who are doing small cell and compare it to my own experience.

Leslie, Don't even get me started on Dyce. I like Joe Calderone but feel kind of short changed. I worked with a group and attended meetings with then State Senator Randy Kuhl to promote the re-invogoration of Dyce. As a result Dyce got a state grant ( soft money in the beginning) to do research. ( I think around $50,000) Looking back I think the money could have been better spent at Beltsville. As far as meds go we do all know what a long term bomb antibiotics are. It looks much different though if you have $30,000 worth of equipment at risk (which is only for a still small time operation like mine) or if you have $300 at risk. We strive to integrate new techniques for management ( like the very intensive non-medicating management study out of New Zealand aimed at control of foulbrood). Having destroyed a couple thousand old frames in the last 2 years, no longer making frame exchange for equalization, management of honey supers and such has had a huge impact on foulbrood for us. I still rotate antibiotics hoping that I can stay on top of it until I have mastered a kinder/gentler but high percentage of success management method.

#1 Hired a very intelligent field assistance who had extensive experiance in setting up an extremely successful honey cooperative in some developing island areas who couldn't be bothered to give a local bee club an hour or so talk on how it was done. That group was very interested in forming a cooperative. Imagine that we spent hours of our time going to meetings, doing promotion, writing letters and the guy who gets hired because of that can't be bothered for an hour to talk to a group. (he did talk to groups as long as they were throwing 75 or a $100 his direction.)

#2 Worked very hard (as researchers should) at maintaining a beeyard heavily infested with varroa mites for study right at Cornell, not much isolation from outlying beekeepers.

#3 Did not have any easily accessable updates and usable information for the general beekeeping public relating to new methodology, studies which were in progress, etc. unless you invested in their "Master Beekeeping Course" which most commercial guys don't have a need for or time for.
Not that we don't need to learn, we just don't need to take a course in hiving packages to get information which as taxpayers we are paying for anyway.

Sometimes it was more about academia than really helping the beekeepers that initially supported the program with their time and tax dollars in the beginning.
When I had contacted Beltsville in those days I always found the staff extremely intent on helping me resolve issues. Although Dyce is much smaller I think much could have been accomplished through web updates and possibly some type of forum.

"When all of the approximately 300 worker brood cells analyzed in each colony were compared, we found a significant positive correlation between cell width and the number of invading varroa females per cell in four of the six colonies."

"As varroa is more prevalent in the larger European-sized brood cells than in the naturally built Africanized worker brood cells, the use of unnaturally large comb cell size should be re-examined in the light of its effect on parasite levels."

"The small width comb cells produced by Africanized honey bees may have a role in the ability of these bees to tolerate infestations by Varroa destructor, furthermore it appears that natural-sized comb cells are superior to over-sized comb cells for disease resistance."

I emailed Prof. De Jong about this a few weeks ago. When asked about disease resistance in the small cell bees he said:
"that it makes sense that the bees would be more efficient at taking care of brood in natural sized comb."

He mentioned:
"There is a more or less
related paper in ABJ - , E.; Piccirillo, G.A.; De Jong, D. A semi-natural bioassay for hort-finding behavior of Varroa destructor. Am.
Bee J., 144: 625-627, 2004."

May be more good small cell stuff, because he stated that:
"We will be publishing a few more on this theme, and we will continue to work in this area."

&gt; The only impasse I see is that no one in the
&gt; scientific community wants to do the research.

Research has been done, and the results were less
than stunning. The reaction was for everyone
to groan and moan about the methodology used,
and construct elaborate conspiracy theories
about the "pesticide industry" somehow influencing
the researchers.

Now it is suddenly claimed that no one "wants"
to do the research? That's just untruthful.

Even if yet another research project was done
using the "small cell packages" and the results
were less than stunning, the researchers would yet
again be pelted with rotten fruit, stones, and
random clods of earth by the small-cell true
believers, and some sort of excuse would be
trotted out to "prove" that the methodology was
(once again) flawed.

As I have said before, don't give the researchers
any room for error - loan them hives that YOU
agree are "true small-cell hives", and then you
will know that they are looking at the same hives
that you claim are superior due solely to their
small cell regression. It need not be a formal
study at first, and it need not be a large number
of hives at first. Just enough to let them see
how the hives do against varroa. If the hives
are as robust as claimed, they can certainly
survive the test period without any problem,
and the test period need not be long, nor need
it conflict with the usual honey-production
cycle, as mites tend to be worst in late
summer, after the main harvests are over.

While I agree that the most recent studies done
clearly did stumble on the whole "regression
technique" issue, it is NOT necessary that the
researcher do the regression work.

So, who is going to put a hive where their
mouth is, and accept the results as valid?

&gt; Now it is suddenly claimed that no one "wants"
&gt; to do the research? That's just untruthful.

Okay, give us names.

&gt; As I have said before, don't give the researchers
&gt; any room for error - loan then hives that YOU
&gt; agree are "true small-cell hives",

A better way is to have the researchers go to where the bees are and perform their testing in "the real world."

&gt; So, who is going to put a hive where their
&gt; mouth is, and accept the results as valid?

No one has to accept the results as valid. Valid happens when the study is clearly done with respect to the dynamics of the whole hive. Using bits and pieces of different cell sizes in a hive proves nothing except that the study was embarrassingly poorly done.

No one else has anything on the table and I have nothing on the table. I have nothing to win or lose here. My hives are doing fine.

You're asking some small cell beekeeper to provide hives to some unnamed researcher in some unnamed location to do some unspecified research that supposedly will have something to do with small cell and Varroa, which has no benefit for those of us who are already succeeding with it. I'd have a hard time convincing the IRS I'm trying to make a profit, if I gave away quite a few hives with no possible return on my investment.

On the other hand it is very tempting to try to help out the beekeepers of the world with this. If you can get a SPECIFIED researcher in a SPECIFIED location that will do a SPECIFIED protocol that is workable, then I'd probably seriously be interested from a strictly altruistic point of view.

But as far as "Raise, call, or fold" there is currently nothing on the table for me to win or lose.

My one small cell hive survived the winter up here at latitude N. 61ΒΊ. The other day, after returning from NY, I thought they were dead, so pulled off the tarpaper wrap and removed the cover. They were alive and well. Sometimes it's good to be wrong......